Coronavirus

[Ducky]

There's "no proof" because pushing peer-reviewed scientific studies out to Joe Public isn't going to accomplish shit. These are the guys and gals that are far more qualified to give an opinion on the matter, why aren't they trusted? When you're told as a kid don't put a nail into a socket do you heed the advice or do you put one in because you're skeptical?

I'm not saying don't question things or that skepticism is bad, but at what point do you have to concede that you don't really understand what's going on and they maybe you should listen to those in the know?

It took about half a second to Google "efficacy of face masks" and have a report from the CDC with a tonne of references to studies pop up.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html#recent-studies

I see all of those studies there. Have you read them?

I can't access the referenced reports, so I haven't read them. But seeing as the article referencing them is the CDC saying "wear a mask", it's reasonable to assume what they conclude.

[astfgyl]

I think again, that your answer encapsulates a lot of the problem. It is not reasonable to assume anything without reading beyond the headline. It is reasonable to actually read where they are getting their info from and draw your conclusion to the best of your ability or understanding. It is also reasonable to listen to more than one side of the argument, so I won't say those referenced studies are wrong or that they are implying something more than inferring it without reading them.

This lady here

https://youtu.be/A7vLA7hQ5rI?t=590 gives a brief overview on looking into things as an investigative journalist. I know we all don't have the time she does to investigate everything, but what she is proposing we do here is a good starting point. Have a look at it anyway it's only a couple of minutes from the timestamp there and it is not sensationalist or misleading in the slightest, just plain and simple methodology for testing the value of the information we receive.

Look I don't want to come across like I have a clue about the answers to any of this, but from what I see panning out here we are all being fed with questionable information from all sides but too many don't want to question it, and that leads to acceptance of things that may not be strictly true. That in itself might not be such a big deal except for the outcome affects every one of us in almost all aspects of our lives and it is creating hysteria around something that needs to be looked at in a much more critical and level headed fashion.

[Pedrito]

They're all fair points. If masks don't work, for arguments sake) then they are possibly more dangerous than if we didn't use them. That would be my way of approaching it. That's not to say we shouldn't do our best to wipe the virus out. I'm keeping an open mind and following the rules, questionable as many of them seem to be.

[astfgyl]

Ah yeah, it could well turn out that masks are the thing that saves the human race from extinction. It's just that the solid evidence isn't there, just the hypothesis so far. So yeah, I'll stay wearing it while keeping a healthy dose of skepticism and a rough 2 metres out of people's way.

[Pedrito]

Same..they're great when I go shoplifting on a Saturday morning.

[Yung Led Zeppelin]

I still don't understand the anti-mask argument at all, I have to say. Like, it's just not a big deal to wear a mask, or is it? I wasn't arsed taking mine off after coming out of the shop the other day and cycled home, up hills etc. My mouth was a bit warm, that was about the extent of the "bad".

On the efficacy, I wouldn't see it as a zero sum game. If it can help reduce the spread at all (and it seems like it would have to, there's been several videos just demonstrating on a brute, pop physics way, good one in this thread even) then why not give it a lash?

I can understand the anti-vaxxer arguments to an extent (even if I think they're a load of fucking bollocks) but anti-mask just makes no sense to me on any serious level. Like, who does it benefit to push the wearing of masks? If this  is coming off an snarky, it's not meant to at all. Just wanna see what  the reasoning might be, because all I've seen so far (not from any of ye, but elsewhere) has basically amounted to "I don't like it".

[Carnage]

Seems to be more or less accepted in my neck of the woods at this stage, very rare to see anyone in a shop without one though there's always one or two - usually travellers, as it happens. The worst offenders are the ones who wear them below their nose or on their chin, each rendering them utterly useless. It's only when they're refused service that they'll cop on, and that'll never happen.

[Pedrito]

I still don't understand the anti-mask argument at all, I have to say. Like, it's just not a big deal to wear a mask, or is it? I wasn't arsed taking mine off after coming out of the shop the other day and cycled home, up hills etc. My mouth was a bit warm, that was about the extent of the "bad".

On the efficacy, I wouldn't see it as a zero sum game. If it can help reduce the spread at all (and it seems like it would have to, there's been several videos just demonstrating on a brute, pop physics way, good one in this thread even) then why not give it a lash?

I can understand the anti-vaxxer arguments to an extent (even if I think they're a load of fucking bollocks) but anti-mask just makes no sense to me on any serious level. Like, who does it benefit to push the wearing of masks? If this  is coming off an snarky, it's not meant to at all. Just wanna see what  the reasoning might be, because all I've seen so far (not from any of ye, but elsewhere) has basically amounted to "I don't like it".

It's not what we're saying. There's loads of info out there saying it doesn't work and might even be worse for you. Why would someone wear something that doesn't work if they don't have to? That's all. It's not a conspiracy, it's trying to get real, legitimate info which doesn't seem to exist.

[Ollkiller]

I still don't understand the anti-mask argument at all, I have to say. Like, it's just not a big deal to wear a mask, or is it? I wasn't arsed taking mine off after coming out of the shop the other day and cycled home, up hills etc. My mouth was a bit warm, that was about the extent of the "bad".

On the efficacy, I wouldn't see it as a zero sum game. If it can help reduce the spread at all (and it seems like it would have to, there's been several videos just demonstrating on a brute, pop physics way, good one in this thread even) then why not give it a lash?

I can understand the anti-vaxxer arguments to an extent (even if I think they're a load of fucking bollocks) but anti-mask just makes no sense to me on any serious level. Like, who does it benefit to push the wearing of masks? If this  is coming off an snarky, it's not meant to at all. Just wanna see what  the reasoning might be, because all I've seen so far (not from any of ye, but elsewhere) has basically amounted to "I don't like it".

It's not what we're saying. There's loads of info out there saying it doesn't work and might even be worse for you. Why would someone wear something that doesn't work if they don't have to? That's all. It's not a conspiracy, it's trying to get real, legitimate info which doesn't seem to exist.

Have to ask. Where is this info that a mask dosent work and that it actually makes it worse.

[astfgyl]

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

Here. It doesn't say that they conclusively make it worse, just that the findings of the study in question indicated that they may do so more than it indicated they may do any good.

[Ducky]

I think again, that your answer encapsulates a lot of the problem. It is not reasonable to assume anything without reading beyond the headline. It is reasonable to actually read where they are getting their info from and draw your conclusion to the best of your ability or understanding. It is also reasonable to listen to more than one side of the argument, so I won't say those referenced studies are wrong or that they are implying something more than inferring it without reading them.

This lady here

https://youtu.be/A7vLA7hQ5rI?t=590 gives a brief overview on looking into things as an investigative journalist. I know we all don't have the time she does to investigate everything, but what she is proposing we do here is a good starting point. Have a look at it anyway it's only a couple of minutes from the timestamp there and it is not sensationalist or misleading in the slightest, just plain and simple methodology for testing the value of the information we receive.

Look I don't want to come across like I have a clue about the answers to any of this, but from what I see panning out here we are all being fed with questionable information from all sides but too many don't want to question it, and that leads to acceptance of things that may not be strictly true. That in itself might not be such a big deal except for the outcome affects every one of us in almost all aspects of our lives and it is creating hysteria around something that needs to be looked at in a much more critical and level headed fashion.

I did, I read the big article the CDC wrote about it. They're not some lad on YouTube, they're one of the global authorities on infectious disease. And i don't need to read the counterpoints. Again, I'm by no means an expert but I have a degree in environmental science that involved three years of  both the theoretical and practical study of microbiology. What the CDC says lines up perfectly with my own understanding of things before I read about it.

If you will, my own educated guess on things aligns with the factual information that has been documented.

Anyway, it's wearing a mask, no biggie.

[astfgyl]

And i don't need to read the counterpoints.

That's the spirit!

[Snare]

I hear ya Young Led Zep, not like people are being asked to wear a ball & chain or anything. It's a minor inconvenience, and that's only because of my glasses.

I like the plug and nail reference as well Juggz!  So yeah, I really don't see the need to get so hung up on masks.

About non-maskers not looking to get others not to wear masks, I think the point is that others don't want to be exposed to their carelessness/recklessness. If they want to play Russian Roulette then keep the rest of us out of it please.

Speaking of which, great to see a certain female journalist see her come uppance and get arrested for her antics the other day. And with her anti-immigrant / refugee stance, it's too funny that she's talking about leaving the country and seeking refugee status elsewhere! 

[Juggz]

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

Here. It doesn't say that they conclusively make it worse, just that the findings of the study in question indicated that they may do so more than it indicated they may do any good.

Hmmm...

The group study was comparing medical masks vs cloth masks in

1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards

- so they're monitoring the effectiveness of masks in preventing infection in an environment where the ill are not wearing masks?

it says this...

This trial  found ILI rates were 13 times higher in Vietnamese hospital workers allocated to cloth masks compared to medical/surgical masks, RR 13.25, (95%CI 1.74 to 100.97) and over three times higher when compared to no masks, RR 3.49 (95%CI 1.00 to 12.17). 4 

So, correct me if I'm reading this incorrectly, but I interpret that as wearing medical masks has a substantial positive impact on the wearer becoming infected compared to no mask and cloth mask, and wearing a cloth mask potentially exposes the wearer to greater risk of infection in an environment where the infected are not wearing masks?

Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. 

The wearing of masks has been advised to prevent the spread of airborne particles and medical masks appear to prevent 56% of particle penetration based on that finding, so that backs up the concept of why we're advised to be wearing a mask provided it's a medical mask, no?

One of the other documents it references says...

The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings. The credibility of effect-modification across settings was, therefore, low. Wearing face masks was also acceptable and feasible.

So, what I take from that is that wearing medical masks is a good thing, in line with what has been advised, whereas wearing cloth masks is largely ineffective and become a risk if not washed after use? So if I wear a medical mask and you wear a medical mask we substantially reduce the risk of transmitting a virus such as this to each other, as the mask has benefits in preventing particles leaving an infected wearer as well as being inhaled by an uninfected wearer, based on your link.

[astfgyl]

First of all, fair play for actually reading it before using it against me

So, what I take from that is that wearing medical masks is a good thing, in line with what has been advised, whereas wearing cloth masks is largely ineffective and become a risk if not washed after use? So if I wear a medical mask and you wear a medical mask we substantially reduce the risk of transmitting a virus such as this to each other, as the mask has benefits in preventing particles leaving an infected wearer as well as being inhaled by an uninfected wearer, based on your link.

That seems a perfectly reasonable deduction from what the study presents and I have no argument with that logic.

However, the HSE says:

Medical face masks
Medical face masks are for:

healthcare workers
people in self-isolation who cannot keep a distance of 2 metres between themselves and other people in their household
Some workers in specific jobs also use them. Medical masks are vital supplies. They are not intended for use by the general public unless you are in self-isolation and cannot keep a distance of 2 metres between you and other people in your household.

Wear a cloth face covering when shopping and on public transport. This will help to make sure that medical face masks are kept for those who really need them.

That is from https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/face-masks-disposable-gloves.html

So we don't really need them then?

and I said:

Here. It doesn't say that they conclusively make it worse, just that the findings of the study in question indicated that they may do so more than it indicated they may do any good.

Maybe I have should have clarified it a bit by mentioning that I meant the cloth masks that we are all wearing, and that we have been talking about in this thread, so I don't see the issue with what I said there at all.

Medical ones sound like they should do a bit.